The Madrid Codex: New Approaches to Understanding an Ancient Maya Manuscript

Chapter 4: Tayasal Origin of the Madrid Codex

Tayasal Origin of the Madrid Codex: Further Consideration of the Theory MERIDETH PAXTON There are three surviving fragments of prehispanic Maya books, or codices, whose authenticity is not subject to question.1 Named for the cities where they currently reside, the Dresden, Paris, and Madrid codices consist of screenfolded pages with illustrated hieroglyphic texts; the most extensive of these is the Madrid Codex (Codex Tro-Cortesianus). Each of the codices provides fundamental information concerning the people who produced them, but unfortunately no known European records register the circumstances under which they were collected by the Spaniards. Therefore, any attempt to determine the cultural contexts of the manuscripts must derive from study of their intrinsic traits. On the basis of such evidence, the Madrid Codex has for many years been treated as a Yucatec document. The idea that it originated at Tayasal, the capital of the last large group of Maya to be conquered, has also been considered. Discussion of the previously rejected notion that the Madrid Codex was painted at Tayasal has recently resumed (e.g., Schuster 1999), and the idea has C H A P T E R 4 MERIDETH PAXTON 90 gained some acceptance (e.g., Miller 1999:187–188). This renewed interest has resulted from opinions expressed by Michael Coe and Justin Kerr (1998:181) and by James Porter (1997:41, 43). However, both of the current theories are founded on a few specific arguments that have subsequently also been strongly opposed by Harvey Bricker (Chapter 2), John Chuchiak (Chapter 3), and Donald Graff and Gabrielle Vail (2001).2 At the same time, more has been learned about the Tayasal area since the earliest attempts to trace the origin of the codex to the archaeological site. These advances have prompted the present investigation of whether a more general inquiry would find other grounds for making the connection and whether the previously recognized affinities with Yucatán might now equally well be construed as means to link the manuscript with Tayasal. HISTORY OF THE THEORY The earliest account of the 1697 conquest of Tayasal (see Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1), compiled by Juan de Villagutierre Soto-Mayor, was published soon after the event, in 1701. His History of the Conquest of the Province of the Itza mentions use at the settlement of books painted on bark paper, which were confiscated by the leader of the military effort, Martín de Ursúa yArizmendi (Villagutierre Soto-Mayor 1983 [1701]:394). The account also provides a description of the content and physical characteristics of some of these books. The Indians briefly seemed convinced it was the appropriate time for them to surrender because both parties in the conflict had referred to “the designated count which they themselves used to interpret their ancient prophecies . . . which were some characters or figures painted on the bark of trees, each sheet or tablet about a hand’s span in length and the thickness of an eighth reale, folded one part over the other like a folding screen, which they called analtehes” (Villagutierre Soto-Mayor 1983 [1701]:249). Additionally, Ursúa mentioned in a letter to the Spanish king, written July 30, 1697, that he had seen a screenfolded book containing a record of the genealogy of the principal Itzá ruler, and the conqueror is known to have personally owned two bark paper books that reputedly told prophecies (Jones 1994).3 Thus it is plausible that a Maya hieroglyphic book like the Madrid Codex could have been sent to Europe by Ursúa. Perhaps the first proponent of a theory of Tayasal provenience for a particular Maya manuscript was one of the early explorers of the region, Teoberto Maler (1976[1910]:170), who thought books seen at the settlement at the time of the Conquest closely resembled the Dresden Codex. The widely circulated facsimile publication of the Dresden, Madrid, and Paris codices by Villacorta C. and Villacorta (1976:11, 225) specifies Petén origins for both the Dresden and Madrid codices without providing detailed justifications. Referring to the Madrid Codex, the authors state, “Este Códice es de origen Itzá, quizás de TAYASAL ORIGIN OF THE MADRID CODEX 91 Tayasal” (Villacorta C. and Villacorta 1976:176).4 The Villacortas credited Maler with the suggestion that the Dresden Codex had come from the Petén, conceivably from Tikal (Villacorta C. and Villacorta 1976:6, 9),5 and they may have presumed that...